|
|
-
-
Initial post
18 JUN 19 by
bibi
|
What an unusual rose ! Where is it possible to buy it on line please ?
|
REPLY
|
Reply
#1 of 1 posted
11 JUN by
 Mrbill
|
2023 Cal Coastal Rose Society fall auction
|
REPLY
|
-
-
Initial post
26 NOV 22 by
bibi
|
A ne pas confondre avec un autre rosier à petites fleurs portant le même nom proposé par Avramis (Grèce) ref:Avraprod.
|
REPLY
|
-
-
|
What colour IS the real Souvenir d'Alphonse Lavalee? Is it the deep, dark, almost violet burgundy red of Erinnerung an Brod or Souvenir du Dr. Jamain,or is it the lighter red that I am seeing in John Hook's photos? Red is such a difficult colour to photograph, and different cameras and lighting influence the tones so much; I'd be very grateful if someone could give me a verbal description as well...
|
REPLY
|
|
Niels Plougmann says that this one, photo 65187 is correct: it's the same plant as was photographed by the late James Young for a book, but it hasn't survived changes of ownership of Ruston's. Presumably the one at Thomas for Roses (also in South Australia) was the same, but I don't know whether it survived the bushfire of a year ago. I can't help with a description.
|
REPLY
|
Reply
#2 of 8 posted
25 JAN 21 by
eihblin
|
Thank you, Margaret, but I don't see any numbers on the photos,so I can't tell to which one you refer!
|
REPLY
|
|
If you click on a photo to enlarge it, the number appears beneath it. It's one that I posted.
|
REPLY
|
Reply
#4 of 8 posted
25 JAN 21 by
eihblin
|
Thank you for your patience, Margaret. Alas, on my browser I can only see one photo of yours numbered 343005,and it only shows hips, no flowers.
|
REPLY
|
|
This one. There's a way of finding the photo by the number, but I've forgotten how.
|
REPLY
|
Reply
#6 of 8 posted
25 JAN 21 by
eihblin
|
O, Margaret, thank you so much! That is stupendous!
|
REPLY
|
Reply
#7 of 8 posted
25 JAN 21 by
jedmar
|
Move the mouse cursor onto the photo and you will see the link with the photo number on the lower left corner
|
REPLY
|
Reply
#8 of 8 posted
21 MAR 22 by
bibi
|
Thank you. Mine is quite similar to the one of Labenz rosenpark.
|
REPLY
|
-
-
|
Another question about this rose: here, on this site, the blooms are described as "small to medium, medium to large"...which is correct?
|
REPLY
|
|
I am sure medium to large is correct as the 1885, 1901 and 1936 references all say large. That seemed to be a technical glitch as small to medium was not selected. However deleting the large and then reselecting it, seemed to work. I’ll notify Admin notwithstanding. Thanks Eihblin.
|
REPLY
|
Reply
#2 of 5 posted
30 JAN 21 by
jedmar
|
That happens when two non-identical listings are merged. You can see that also the colour description has two different texts. After merging it is necessary to open the file details and close again for the duplicates to disappear.
|
REPLY
|
|
Aha....of course. Thank you Jedmar.
|
REPLY
|
Reply
#4 of 5 posted
21 MAR 22 by
bibi
|
I would like to believe that I posess the good variety. It is dark red, a little bit paler than Souvenir du Dr Jamain. Medium size flowers full of petals.
|
REPLY
|
|
Niels Plougmann told me that the one that was at Renmark was correct ( Photo Id: 65187, third from the start of the photos: the same plant was photographed for Botanica's Roses.) It was removed to make way for a more commercial rose planting.
|
REPLY
|
|
